Right, which is going to open a lot of doors to a lot of questions.

I don't think there's any legal ramifications on this, just ethical ones about when and how you publish research, but it's yet another point in favor of "if provenance is hard to track, should we be using this for things where it needs to be".

Obviously copyright/trademark is a huge discussion on this, and I could absolutely see this devolving into that as well with how certain findings wind up monetized.

We have a response in this topic from someone claiming to be from OpenAI and linking an article where they, roughly, say "we are sure nothing from the 2 month period made its way into the solution". If that is true, that should mean it is provable, but leads to some more open ended questions like "well what data did it use then?". Is this still okay if someone close to the author did plug data into open AI and it extrapolated it?

Obviously that's probably an unreasonable expectation for these models to track and prove, but it also used to be an unreasonable expectation to scrape every single piece of digital and physical info for consolidated data.

If I opine to a friend on a park bench about a story I'm writing, do they get to pull it from the flock feed, shove it in the model, and then provide it to disney?

Legally, right now, probably. But there's going to need to be a serious look at laws and standards. Or a major shift in what is and isn't discussed in public if literally every breath and move you make can become monetized.

Which you commonly have in your pocket? I have a GPD pocket 4 and love me some portable laptops, but I do sorta hope we get somewhere with foldables to where I'm happy just breaking out an arc mouse and small keyboard and treating that as the computer.

We're obviously not, and i'm probably not anywhere near willing to shell out the cash for this, but "the tool you have" and all that.

I picked it a few years ago for much the same reason as anyone else (sick of this shit), and it's main attraction to me was it being a turnkey solution that focus security so i wasn't as likely to completely fuck everything important up.

I think a "simple" installation package would be very attractive to most people, and while cosmos has a lot of growing to do in order to be that, I'm still pretty happy with it.

I'm even more happy to see more in this space, because I'm just at the point of "do i stick with cosmos or do i start rolling it all myself" and god the leap is terrifying if you're thinking of exposing to the internet. I get it, but at the same time it feels like you're always one missed config away from a potential nightmare, and that's after the "welp guess this is my second job" problem.

On the one hand, you're totally right. Pushback should exist.

On the other hand, I have seen some seriously lazy and wild justifications for sticking in the chrome universe because tech users aren't immune to justifying a bad product through inertia (and, honestly, are probably champions at it).

I have seen and heard plenty of firefox "can't handle all the sites they need" and I have always been curious as to what these people are doing because I've been on FF for decades and the ONLY time I switch to a chrome browser is for VIA (and that's a whole google did a standard no one else wants to do situation).

To be fair, I suspect some of that has to do with major web dev stuff that I don't have to do, so it is very possible I'm actually just missing the mark here and the tooling/use case is really that much better in chrome (although I know that's its own issue since that's kinda the problem), and there are those who've found some major feature on a chrome spinoff that they just love and FF doesn't do well.

Still accounting from those, I'd safely bet money a lot of people who claim firefox just cannot work for them haven't really bothered to try to adopt. It's functionally identical to me outside of the whole "better adblock" and "arguably better bookmarks i forget to use".

Push a button, every icon is now labeled with a key, type that key, counts as a click, done.

I get that this does NOT solve for say, someone who's blind (i guess you could announce them, not sure), but it is easy enough I've found even lower tech people are fine with it.

As always, a lot of the trick is communicating the interface and using modern standards, not "Well it's ctrl + insert because that's what it is on linux"

I have actually gotten "hey i don't think this is a good idea, here's why" as feedback from at least Opus. It WILL still do it if I just demand stupidity (and hell i've been right, which is another topic entirely) but it has given me more confidence this can be a useful tool in the right spots.

That said I probably don't need the top tiers (metrics at least confirm that) and I'm guessing that's specifically because I was working in coding. Most were worded in a "is this a good idea" framing which probably helped, but at least once I said 'lets use this library/method" and it gave a decent argument on why that was basically redundant without prompting.

I still struggle to see the price point panning out.

“Do what you can to eliminate addictive vices or never get them”

“Max your Roth and 401k contributions before even thinking about anything else”

“Try to budget”

“Don’t live beyond your means. Monthly payment need to be considered carefully”

If you can even TRY to do these things it puts you SO far ahead of the average person.

It sucks because I get it, if you’re behind waiting years for things to stabilize sucks, if you even can. So these get rich quick by just doing X scams are enticing but only set you farther behind.

God I still remember when a friend showed up on his 18th birthday with a pack of cigarettes to show how “mature” he was. I always think about how much that one decision cost him over the years.

There's a LOT of reasons for them to not want to do that, and the status quo benefits a lot of other powerful players as well, but screwing up treasuries would be a quick way to change that math.

Edit- To be clear maybe not specifically in this case, but "oops we've ruined this ecosystem to the point we can't farm it" rarely ends with "better move down the road and let nature reclaim it". It's a lot more "cool now we can put strip malls/data centers/whatever here"

The "well it's technically a liquid!" because it "flows" is really not telling the whole story. Like most science, it's just more complex than can be quickly summarized with one sentence, and doesn't quite map to just high school simplifications.

I’m not going to say you can’t find some of this information in shadier spots, but “how do I get my GPS to work on a rocket” or “what kind of math do I need for a fusion implosion” are some of the more extreme examples.

I believe there are several explosive compounds where the formula is decently guarded, although in that case tracking the materials is easier.

I’m not saying anything they’re doing is good, but I feel like since they’re just reinventing the search engine with a lot of this they’re running into similar barriers.

Google has been censoring shit at the whim of governments for years, remotely reasonable or not

On the one hand I could believe it's something more benign, or the usual misunderstood fear mongering making it to some political level (well make sure those users can't get online anonymously! being our current craze).

That said, chemistry and to some level physics have been the major domain of limited knowledge (chemistry because the average person could cause some damage, physics is more of a nation state issue generally).

However I do wonder if there's some legit data on "oh uh...looks like this thing you can make with easy to get and hard to regulate tools is dangerous" in the bio field. I know about the lab rats who want to just screw around in the garage, and it seems like that should be easy to hit at a supply level (much like how certain chemical compounds are just not available for civilians), but maybe there's something legit to limiting the data.

Not that this is a remotely good implementation of that. The hamfisted method does reek of some politician/bureaucrat just saying "No it can't ever return bio questions because RAR!" situation.

I'd kill to be able to build my own small helper libraries in something like Exapunks, but that's way beyond the scope/flavor they were shooting for. I do think there's a neat game there where you setup different problems in a way so naive coders find out their abstractions/libraries aren't perfect (what do you mean i got a null?), but obviously that's a different game at that point.

All the joys of code reuse (as silly as that might sound) do get kinda lost in the game. I still loved it, but I'd kill for a sequel that was a little higher level on the tooling.

The radiologist I know does not, but they are paid very well (and these numbers are always dumb when you're not sure if they're living in Manhattan vs literally anywhere in Kentucky)

Like most medicine, a large % of the job could be done by any decently talented person willing to follow instructions and shadow for a few months.

Like most medicine, the remaining % is what you're paying for, because it is literally life and death and you can't do things like "pull the logs" or "lets turn it off and take it apart" or "huh i need to put this down and come back later". Even in radiology, because "well lets just do it again to be sure" is often not a viable option.

While there is a problem in how we have inflated the cost of education for medical fields, the insane health insurance issues (US obviously, but it does have some effect globally when the expert radiologist you hire from the US to help with research costs that much), and probably some better ways to approach splitting the work for the entire field, like most professions dealing in life or death, medicine likely will always be paid well.